• Add Yours badge

We Want To Hear About The Changes Made By Book Adaptations That Really, Really Bothered You

Big or small, unable to be ignored or unnoticeable to all but the most devout fan, we want to hear about the changes that bummed you out.

If you love a book, odds are you'll have mixed feelings about any adaptation of it, even if you think it's pretty great. It's impossible for a movie or TV show to translate every single aspect of a story to the screen, and sometimes, the changes made are for the better. But sometimes, they're grating.

So we want to hear from you: what's a change a book adaptation made that really, really bothers you?

Here's one of my examples: I think the Hunger Games movies are generally great adaptations of the original trilogy, which I adored as a teenager, BUT...I wish the Avoxes had had more of a role. Their existence is such a chilling example of the Capitol's power and cruelty, and leaving out Darius, a sympathetic Peacemaker-turned-Avox, and Lavinia, who becomes Katniss's friend in the first book, bums me out.

arrow pointing to the character in the back

Another example of a change that rankled readers is the absence of Lady Stoneheart, the reanimated and deeply pissed off version of Cat Stark, from the Game of Thrones TV series.

closeup of the character

Whether it's a tiny detail or a significant plot point, if it's a change made by a book adaptation that put your teeth on edge, we want to hear about it! Tell us the adaptation, the change, and why it bothered you in the comments below or through this anonymous Google Form for the chance to be featured in an upcoming BuzzFeed Community post.